Chick Dissection | Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn

School children are taught that we don’t need God, because we are just animals who came from apes. But Susy tells her young friend that God made us, and sent his Son to give us eternal life. A children’s tract.

Wow, Jack, way to read way the fuck too much into the implications of evolution. I fail to see how evolution is in any way incompatible with the existence of God, or how our being mammalian somehow means we’re “just animals”. It’s kind of amazing that I, as a secular person, seem to be giving God far, far more credit than fundamentalist Christians seem to. I dunno, I think an omnipotent being would be fully capable of fashioning a creation that could change and advance and develop on its own without constant intervention.

“A children’s tract.” Hooray! Brainwash your kids in such a way that it’s effectively an information virus that prevents their minds from even processing any new information! Awesome! No need for knowledge, or the ability to analyze the observable world — all you need is faith! Fuck you, Jack. No, seriously. I’ve said it before, but I really mean it this time.


“Yeah, yeah, I have an opposable thumb, too. Big fuckin’ deal.”

I have good news, children! That gum you like is going to come back in style!

Ah, Ms. Henn, one of Jack Chick’s favorite villains. Instead of presenting a convincing argument for his position, as always he creates an absolute demon of a character whose rational position in opposition to his is undermined not by logical fallacy or lack of evidence, but by the fact that they’re just a generally horrible person in every conceivable way. Thus, the people who end up falling for this kind of shit are the types of people who are so stupid that they choose to process their information based on which characters they identify with the most.

Actually, come to think of it, given Jack’s tendency to give his characters goofy names (see: Lou Siffer in Angels?, for instance), I wonder if Ms. Henn’s first name is Sadie or Sait or Sayde or something like that.

I’m not quite sure what’s impressing the little girl in the back so much. It could be the old teacher’s twins or the presence of the new teacher, but it could also be that the kid sitting next to her completely lacks pupils and is contorting himself into some kind of bodily labyrinth I’m having difficulty unraveling. I’m not sure if that’s an enormous sleeve, or his torso, or what’s going on.

I’ve come to believe that one of the lasting effects of Jack’s stroke was confusing the concepts of “endearing” and “horrifying”. It’s like Children of the Damned, here, or something. He’s probably going for more “doe-like innocence”, but it’s coming across as “soulless blank stares”.

Man, Washington just looks profoundly depressed, here. Jack usually tends to get all cutesy with paintings and things in the backgrounds, but this one’s just heartbreaking. It’s like the portrait was painted just after his only child was bludgeoned to death with his favorite puppy. (OS X users, by the way, can zoom in and out by holding ctrl while scrolling. The effect is even sadder up close.)

This is apparently the introduction of Ms. Henn. Loyal readers will remember that some of her “close friends” include the hideous gay couple infested with demons and Satan. Or, rather, that she HOLY LIVING SHITCUNTS doesn’t throw a condescendingly moralistic shit-fit about other people’s private affairs and sexualities, and OH DEAR SWEET MERCIFUL JESUSCOCK benignly celebrates Halloween by dressing up for the occasion. What a bitch!

Only a non-Christian teacher could be so demanding and domineering. *cough* Catholic school *cough cough*

Er, there are already people who “live in outer space”. They’re called astronauts. Dr. Valeri Polyakov, for instance, spent almost 438 days in space. It’s really not that impressive an idea, kids. It’s also kind of a weird way to start an evolution lesson, as opposed to, y’know, one about outer space.

The operative term, here, is “millions of years”. From what I’ve gathered, creationists seem to be completely incapable of grasping enormous amounts of time. Part of the problem is that they’re unable to get beyond the “6,000 years” baseline, even thinking merely theoretically. It’s like if they even consider a perspective other than their own, de debbil will corrupt their minds. But even beyond that, the concept of a million years is beyond their ability to even fathom. It’s why you get stupid questions like “but how did a T-Rex give birth to a chicken?” and such, as though everything happens instantaneously. More on this later.

“For this scene, we replaced the chalkboard with a thousand-watt light bulb. Let’s see if they notice!”

I think Jack — through Ms. Henn, here — is a little confused about how science works. Scientists haven’t “proven” that humans have evolved from apes, it’s just that the explanation that coincides the most with our repeated and varied observation and testing of evidence is that animals do in fact evolve. There are indeed a few hazy areas, but a hole here or there does not mean that the theory as a whole is bullshit.

Creationists like to pull this weird logical synecdoche — they’ll point to one or two instances of carbon dating being inconsistent, and claim it somehow means that carbon dating as a whole is wrong, as though if my watch shows the incorrect time, it means that all measurement of time is somehow debunked. Apparently, in order for something to be considered trustworthy, it can never, ever fuck up even once. Or, well, you just have to write it in a book at some point and reference it as The Ultimate Truth.

They also think that because theories change (or, if you will, evolve) when new information and evidence arises, that it’s “bad science” or whatever, but: a) Coming from people who think that Intelligent Design is science, it’s a pretty hilarious presumption for them to think that they’re somehow experts; and b) The fact that it does in fact change means it’s good science, in that it doesn’t ignore new evidence. Y’know, like how the Bible is constantly changing whenever there’s new information that contradicts something it says. Oh, wait.

Ms. Henn becomes Carol Channing when she gets angry, like an even more hideous and intimidating Incredible Hulk.

Apes. Are not. Monkeys.

The “truth”, huh? I really like how she doesn’t actually have to have, y’know, any evidence that what she’s saying is the truth, she just has to declare with confidence that it is. Come on, Jack, [non-biblical citation needed]

These scenes that are devoid of background remind me a little of The Matrix. “But, grandpa, Ms. Henn is making me dress up like a witch! What do I do?” “We’re going to need guns, Susy. Lots of guns.” *enormous racks of guns sweep in from the horizon* “Ms. Henn, I told him the truth… there is no spoon.”

Jesus, lady, turn down your fucking vibrator.

Yeah, there’s no other way Ms. Henn could’ve replied other than to scream about whether Susy is calling her a liar. I find this kind of interesting, actually. See, creationists need to hide under the “are you calling God a liar?” skirt whenever they don’t have any better an argument, so I’m guessing, here, that Jack thinks that the same is true for any opposition, as though nobody ever has any real arguments, it’s just a battle of the trustworthiness of my word versus the trustworthiness of God’s word.

While we’re on the subject of calling out liars, here, didn’t Christians in Europe several hundred years ago imprison anyone who posited that the Earth orbited the sun and not the other way around? After all, Psalm 93:1 states that “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved”, and the Bible is always right. Wouldn’t want to call God a liar, now, would we? Because it’s absolutely inconceivable that the Bible might not have been directly inspired by God, or that even if it was, the human intermediaries might’ve gotten something wrong.

Someone explain to me again why her peers — or, fuck, anyone for that matter — refer to Susy as “Li’l Susy”. Maybe it’s a nickname she got from an Everly Brothers fan because she was sleeping in class all the time or something.

You know, a few panels ago, I was thinking, “You know what this Tract could use? More children’s asses.” So thanks, Jack.

GESTICULATING WILDLY! IN RANDOM DIRECTIONS! “It’s, I dunno, wall? Window? Go to… maracas? I… I don’t… what are you trying to say? Charleston? Big hand on the… four… little hand on the… principal’s office?”

Embarrass her? Any teacher worth their salt wouldn’t be “embarrassed” by an idiotic and stubborn student. Like, if Susy said, “Ms. Henn, gravity is a lie! All things are tied to the ground with invisible tethers woven by pixies and secured by gremlins,” or hung a sign around her neck that said “I’m a total fucking retard. Disregard everything I say, for it is all moronic,” why would that be in any way embarrassing for Ms. Henn?

Anyway, a real teacher and not just some made-up wretch who possesses as much of an understanding of evolution or science as Chick himself would be able to inform the class in a rational fashion why Susy is misguided, and why her views with regard to evolutionary theory are outmoded and essentially baseless.

As awful as Ms. Henn is, and as much as Jack’s trying to paint her as the antithesis of Christian or whatever with her “never forgive or forget” thing, she’s still a lot more merciful and kind than God in that she doesn’t torture people for a fucking eternity.

She really, really does look like a really ugly guy in drag.

Maybe I’m just an awful person, but having to experience Jack’s chipmunky little self-insertion asshole in so many of these, it’s giving me a huge schadenfreude hardon to see her so abjectly unhappy here. But not as unhappy as Washington.

Jesus Cockwarming Jizzyodeling Shitbowling Assmarmalade Eustace Christ, get it fucking straight, through your thick motherfucking noggin: Science is not about believing. It’s not just “whatever I tell you is what the truth is”. It’s not “I’m just going to make up a bunch of bullshit and claim it’s true without any explanation WHY or HOW”.

Science is not religion. Science is TAKING OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE EVIDENCE AND OBSERVING AND TESTING IT, AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU NARROW DOWN THE MOST FITTING EXPLANATION FOR WHAT IS TAKING PLACE. Evolution isn’t just something Charles Darwin wrote in a notebook and a bunch of dong-gargling ass-kissers all blindly agreed with it like giggling numbfucks. It’s not a bunch of people thinking it sounds like it makes sense by merit of the idea’s own logic alone.

Seriously, just shut UP already. Goddamnit.

Nope, this is entirely incorrect. Fuck fossil records and other observable information — as we all know, humans and dinosaurs co-existed, dinosaurs survived the flood aboard Noah’s Ark, and then hillbilly lumberjacks hunted them to extinction because dinosaurs were the only creatures whose lungs were effected by the radical change in atmospheric conditions, because God is a huge dick and decided to make them exclusively particularly vulnerable to such a thing. Yep. Oh, and evolutionary adaptation doesn’t exist even though we can observe it, but God once got really pissed off at a talking snake in a tree that tricked a lady into eating a magic apple, so he took away serpents’ legs. Makes much more sense.

I also like how she claims the evidence for evolution from apes is overwhelming, but instead of actually presenting any of it, she talks about the extinction of the dinosaurs. WAY TO GRASP A CONCEPT, JACK. No wonder creationists think evolution is ridiculous, if this is how they think it’s presented. “One day, we’ll live in space. Man evolved from apes! ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR THEY DID I MEAN IT SERIOUSLY. Here’s the evidence: A meteor killed the dinosaurs. That’s it, lesson over. Evolution, ladies and gentlemen. Any questions? WHAT? YOU DARE QUESTION ME?”

Children! Terrifying children! I think that’s Li’l Drew Carey over on the far left, there.

Wait. What?

It’s easy to convince someone that something is ridiculous and unfounded if you either have no fucking clue what you’re talking about, or you’re intentionally leaving out information or explaining it like you’re retarded. You could make just about anything sound misguided.

<SCIENCE>

Okay, for any creationists or fundamentalists or whatever who might be reading this, here’s a quickie explanation of evolution: There’s an island called Pingelap, in the Pacific Ocean. Several generations ago, a man on the island was born with a rare hereditary form of achromatopsia (colorblindness) that didn’t just make him confuse the color blue with another color, it prevented him from perceiving it at all. A tropical storm wiped out nearly all the population save for a handful of people, including this man. As a result, a relatively large number of people on this island now have this same genetic colorblindness.

Meanwhile, there’s a family in Mexico who are afflicted with hypertricosis, another genetic condition/mutation that makes them completely covered in hair. (Google for Jesus Aceves.) Now, if instead of colorblindness, which isn’t really all that physically apparent, the Pingelap ancestor was afflicted with genetic hypertricosis, the island would be populated by a bunch of people who all bear a resemblance to wolf-men. And this is all within several generations. Extrapolate changes like this over millions of years (and you really need to wrap your mind around a timespan that large), and you can see how the developing genetic snowball could result in a radically different creature from the one we call “human” today.

I understand it’s difficult to comprehend the kinds of situations that would facilitate more rapid evolution, given that today, there are many people who survive, thanks to modern technology and medicine, who wouldn’t have under shittier conditions. But if you take into account tribal warfare, weather, natural disasters (like the tropical storm on Pingelap), and the myriad other ways for large numbers of people to be wiped out, and you combine it with the extremely low populations of humans that initially existed, a genetic mutation in a single individual that might today seem like no big deal at all could’ve resulted in a dramatic change to the development of humanity into what we currently are.

There are a lot of subtle differences that can take place from one generation to the next, and even more dramatic ones that can result from mutations, especially with the increase in potential genetic abnormalities that come as a result of inbreeding. So for human attributes to change radically over the course of millions of years is far from unfathomable. It’s just that you have to get over the notion that just because someone — divinely inspired or otherwise — wrote “6,000 years” in a book somewhere, that doesn’t mean that’s how it actually happened. (See also: Aforementioned thing about the Earth being fixed and unmoving. Please keep in mind that the Bible was written when people were even dumber than we are today.)

</SCIENCE>

Whew. Anyway. Yeah, birds all just sprung fully-formed from the loins of dinosaurs, or something. Shut up.

* See this other thing that we also published, which astonishingly supports everything we claim here.

GAH! It’s like a racist caricature or something. Jesus. I mean, I know that’s probably not the effect he was going for, but damn. It’s like he doesn’t understand how black faces work or something, so he just puts lips all over the damn place. I also really like that the kid’s hair is effectively just a blurred diamond pattern.

Well, my God, a giant omnipotent bee that lives in the center of the sun and controls every atom with its infinite invisible arms (and I challenge you to prove she doesn’t exist) was there at the very beginning of creation, too, and it told me that the Earth was created when it was particularly moved by something and clapped its hands and everything just kind of suddenly came into being. It told me this via a series of musical tones that corresponded to different letters, played by a toad that smashed the horn as soon as it was finished with the composition and then hopped away so I have no evidence. I just have yet to write it down and get millions of people to believe it two thousand years from now, is all.

So, I’m confused: Why weren’t Adam and Eve eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex? Did God somehow change its nature at some point between its inception as an apparently docile creature and the violent beast we know today? If so, why? And why didn’t God change dinosaurs to be better suited to the after-flood environment?

“The Bible tells us lots of stuff.” Yeah, so does every other piece of literature that has ever been written.

Most people will end up in hell, Timmy, because God is love. God loves us so much, in fact, that he’s willing to torture us and/or our loved ones for an eternity over something that by all logical accounts is actually his fault. So you’d better believe in him, so that you can be by his side forever, watching him relentlessly destroy good people for no real reason.

Give this Tract to your children, so they can learn to be just as smug as Li’l Susy! Remember, all you need are the Three Ps: Practice, Patience and Pissheaded self-righteousness.

Please explain to me why thinking God is omnipotently capable enough that he could develop something as complex and awesome as evolution makes it impossible to believe in him. Go ahead, give it a shot, Jack. One of these days, you should maybe try to actually support your position instead of spreading “Accept Jesus? Y/n” across eight panels.

For the record, I’m an agnostic. I try to be scientifically-minded enough that I refuse to draw definite conclusions about things for which there is no observable, testable evidence either way. I think it’s possible God could exist, and I don’t see how such an existence — provided he’s not an enormous dickhead who thinks it’s a fun game to make all of reality completely different than it actually appears so that he can torture people forever — would necessarily conflict with any scientific laws or theories we’ve discovered. Again, an omnipotent being would be capable of more than just “I’m making an unchanging blob of creation that I never want to advance or develop in any way, save for when I decide to remove a snake’s legs or something, or arbitrarily make a bird more capable of obtaining food, or when I want a species to just completely die off with no replacement for no real reason”.

She looks just like a chipmunk, only instead of packing her cheeks with nuts, they’re filled to capacity with self-important moralist bullshit.

Oh, fuck you. So, here’s how this breaks down: Give this to your children, so that they’ll be so terrified of being tortured for an eternity that they’ll ignore any evidence that might in any way contradict our fairy tale book. It’s basically an information virus that effectively turns off your child’s willingness to even hear any information other than what you’ve already told them, keeping them totally ignorant of any other perspective but their own by controlling them with fear. Yeah, that’s the kind of kindness and love that Jesus spoke about.

You know, sometimes I think that fundamentalists are such thoroughly horrible people because they actually want to provoke someone into becoming the Antichrist, as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Eventually, someone’s going to get so sick of their shit that he or she actually assumes power and rounds them all up into camps and kills them simply because it’s what fundies seem to want, and because they don’t seem to think this lifetime is of any real importance. “Let’s make every intelligent person’s life miserable so that one of them will eventually mercilessly persecute us, just like we always wanted!”

“But Ms. Henn’s lesson is going to keep me from going to heaven? Well, that just pudges my jowls!”

Gah! No pupils! Begone, soulless demon child!

Round One: Ol’ Devil vs. Li’l Susy! FIGHT!

“DUHHH, WHAT’S A JESUS?” He seems to have some vague awareness of who Jesus is, but is unsure of the specifics. Like, you’d think if someone told him about Jesus at all, they’d have mentioned the implications within Christianity and all that.

This is scary, all right. Calculatedly so.

Either something in the background exploded just a moment prior to them walking by, or they live on the top of a mountain, or there’s some kind of hot spring back there, or Jack doesn’t know how clouds work. I think it’s probably that last one.

What the hell is she doing with her mouth? It’s like she’s about to puke up some partially-digested worms for some baby birds or something. I’d kind of like to make an animated gif of this where a huge turd slides out of her mouth a la that one episode of South Park.

“Did Jesus get away?” “Nope.” I mean, fuck, come on, how much dumber can this dialog get?

More giant, puffy, ground-level clouds!

“…no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Jesus: semen courier.

You know, if it weren’t for that “dirty lie”, Jesus would’ve come to Earth and died of old age. Would that have actually counted? I thought it had to be a sacrifice. I mean, basically, all the bad things that have happened in the Bible that are supposedly the fault of man are all necessary for Jesus to exist in the first place. And if people like Jack think that it was Jesus who fashioned the universe — that is, that Jesus pre-dated his appearance on Earth — then in order for him to exist, Original Sin had to happen, as did the betrayal of Judas. So eat shit, Susy.

Yeah, he’s coming back “real soon”, all right. You know, for as long as people have been saying this, it really doesn’t seem like it’s that spectacularly close at this point. Now, if they’re willing to concede that the world is millions of years old, then yeah, if Jesus comes back within the next several thousand years, it’s relatively “real soon”. But if people have been thinking this since just after Jesus’s death, two thousand years and counting out of six isn’t really all that “soon”.

So, how is evolution a “[way] to heaven”, again? Just… gah. Shut up. Both of you, just shut up.

Fun fact: Whenever someone turns to the side, their pupils and irises totally disappear.

Why can’t a person believe in Jesus, but also, y’know, take a scientific approach to the world around them? What a spectacularly fucking false dichotomy that is. I mean, were this 500 years ago or so, they could just as easily argue that if a person believes that the Earth revolves around the sun, they can’t believe in Jesus. Or that if a person believes that genes exist, they can’t believe in Jesus. Or atoms. Or anything else that people didn’t have the technology to really observe or analyze until more modern technology came into existence.

So, bullshit. Unless a requirement is to completely ignore everything around one’s self, faith has to change with science.

What’s this “Old Devil” stuff, anyway? Is there, like, a “Young Devil” and an “Old Devil”? The former is some kind of sex icon who challenges the conservative perspectives of the adult generation, and the latter is all fat and bloated and eventually dies early in a bathroom in Graceland?

He blinded her with SCIENCE!

Oh, just shut up and go away already, you dumb, self-righteous little shits. The gopher look is actually rather appropriate, considering how deeply she’s burrowed her head up her own ass.

So, here’s a question: Why wouldn’t God want us to intellectually progress in any way? I know the Bible has a pretty deep anti-intellectual sentiment, starting with Genesis with the awfulness of the Tree of Knowledge, but it seems pretty fucking boring to create something and have it stay the same forever. Ooh, boy, Adam and Eve could frolic around in the garden like retards for the rest of time. Hooray! How exciting. Considering God’s mind would be boundless if he were truly omnipotent, you’d think he’d have better things to do than closely monitor total morons.

My mind is not, in fact, boundless, but even I would be bored if I were just watching or participating in something interactive that never changed. Imagine playing a video game where there were no real achievements, no rewards, no progression, no change at all. Like, the first screen of the original Super Mario Bros for the NES, only modified so that the screen never starts moving to the right when you walk in that direction.

If the Bible was really divinely inspired, maybe by “be fruitful and multiply”, God wasn’t only talking about pumping more of us out of our genitals, but being intellectually fruitful and actually accomplishing something with our existence. Become more, progress, fucking do something.

Then again, this entire existence is apparently some kind of arbitrary, meaningless “test” or something on our way to greater reward. Why God doesn’t just plop us all into wherever we’ll eventually be ending up is beyond me.


And so we wrap up the first Chick Dissection of 2008, with hopefully many more to come, though with likely slightly less regularity until I finish my novel. The next one (or two or three) will likely be a Guest Dissection submitted by one of several of you, but I wanted to kick off the new year with a solo.

Until next time, everyone.

121 thoughts on “Chick Dissection | Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn”

  1. Chick has no idea how science works. Does her really think clouds are ground level? Several tracts have supported that.

    First Post!

  2. I think what this whole thing is, why Chick became a tract artist in the first place: is that this is facets of his fantasy world. A world where there are only 3 types of people, beautiful perfect fundamentalists, retarded brainless sheep who’ll follow the fundies as soon as they utter a single bible quote, and horrifically ugly and stupid Atheists/Gay People/Etc (not unlike Ayn Rand’s vision of society in Atlas Shrugged actually, just replace fundamentalist with capitalist). The evolutionists especially, who treat their science like a religion speaking only of belief and never of evidence or reason. I think that’s why, despite the overwhelming evidence, there’s still creationists. Not because they’re not buying the theories, but because they don’t WANT too, they’d prefer to live in this self-satisfied fantasy world and believe that ALL scientists and pro-evolution teachers speak like that. Hence the reason why there’s still these uppity people getting offended by the concept of “being from monkey” because when it’s explained to them that that’s not what evolution says, that we just have a common “ape-like” ancestor, they shut down and stop listening.

    I’ve had debates with creationists before, and there’s one thing that’s always in common with them. As soon as the evidence is too overwhelming, the points too cutting, and the facts too clear, they shut down and go into “lalalalala I’m not listening!!!” mode, and generally bail out in some ungraceful way soon after (or even worse: continue to sit around with fingers tightly in ears spewing bible quotes).

    It’s sad that America, as one of the most advanced nations in the world, still has the topic of Evolution vs. Creationism, when just about all the rest of the world, including the Vatican, have already said “Well, you know, there’s something to that crazy Darwin’s evolution!”.

  3. I actually know several Christians who don’t see evolution as a threat at all. I’ve actually met some who think that evolution glofies God, because it proves how brillent His creations really are.

    I kinda feel a bit sorry for Mrs. Henn though. She has obviously been teaching brats for a long, long time. She’s probably so sick of them that it’s no suprise she acts so mean.

    And yes, Suzy is a CHILD OF THE DAMNED! SHE HAS NO EYES!!

  4. Personally, I believe God set up evolution. Because, if you’re an omnipotent being, you’d likely be able to foresee the consequences of making everything as is then wandering off to play Halo of whatever.

    Speaking of which, in the Bible, we have all these miracles and appearances of God. For example, Moses’ burning bush, Jesus wandering around healing people like an old time Dr. House. But in today’s world, where in the hell are the burning bushes?

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE BUSHES?!

    On a side note, parts of The Killer’s song “When You Were Young” is like an audio version of a Chick Tract.

    First Verse:

    You sit there in your heartache
    Waiting on some beautiful boy to
    Save you from your old ways
    You play forgiveness
    Watch it now
    Here he comes!
    He doesn’t look a thing like Jesus
    *end*

    Great dissection as usual Jabberwock.

    By the way, is the guest dissections open to anybody who sends in a good one?

  5. “Let’s make every intelligent person’s life miserable so that one of them will eventually mercilessly persecute us, just like we always wanted!”

    self-correcting evolutionary error?

  6. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a future tract where we find that Ms. Henn (notice that she’s a “Ms., not a “Miss” or “Mrs.”) is a practicing witch. She looks like she could be teaching at Hogwarts.

  7. No, no, “Ms.” is used by feminists a lot, and as we all know (in Jack Chick’s crazy, ****ed up head), feminists eat more rug than a malfunctioning vacuum cleaner, so OBVIOUSLY Ms. Henn is a lesbian.

  8. “…no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

    Now imagine that line spoken by Russel Crowe. Can you say “badass?”

    Great dissection, and a long time in coming. I missed these.

  9. “But Ms. Henn’s lesson is going to keep me from going to heaven? Well, that just pudges my jowls!”

    Maybe Suzy was storing some nuts after all. She probably offered him one . . .

    Fantastic dissection as per. I’ve been waiting for this one for a long time; it’s absolutely hilarious.

    I’m going to be working on the Tracts involving King David, and I’ll probably be done on them in a week or so.

    Oh yeah, Happy New Year.

  10. > I try to be scientifically-minded enough that I refuse to
    > draw definite conclusions about things for which there is no
    > observable, testable evidence either way.

    What, like fairies, unicorns, CHUD and vampires?

  11. “I have good news children! That gum you like is going to come back in style!”

    Sometimes, L’il Susy’s arms bend backwards.

  12. Gotta keep in mind: The Creationist Museum DOES teach that the Tyrannosaurus was a vegan, back in Eden.

  13. I kid you not, I had a teacher who looked like Ms. Hen if she had binge-ate 24/7 for about three years. Only she was kind of the anti-Ms. Hen. She took me outside the classroom for telling her that not everyone celebrated Christmas in the world and called me a pagan nymph.

    Back when I was seven, I thought a pagan had something to do with being a carpenter.

  14. “Gotta keep in mind: The Creationist Museum DOES teach that the Tyrannosaurus was a vegan, back in Eden.”

    I can see that. The sharp flesh-tearing claws could be used for tearing off branches, and the powerful legs could be used for running down some of the faster more craftier plants.

    I wonder what evidence they have to point to T-rex mysteriously being a vegan, despite the obvious intentions of it’s body. Oh right, “because god”.

  15. Why do Lil’ Susy and others think that Ms.Henn is evil because she teaches evolution. Evolution is in the school curriculum, so she has to teach it. Their teacher who left because she had twins would have to teach it. Does that mean she would be evil?

  16. Did anyone else leap back in shock after seeing those drawings of Timmy and Ms. Henn? I’m going to have nightmares.

    Also, when Ms. Henn took Li’l Susy into that closet, I half-expected the next tract to be of Ms. Henn beating the shit out of Li’l Susy.

    This tract is terrifying, now that I think about it.

  17. One of the best science profs I ever had was a Christian. She taught me that you can reconcile evolution and the Bible.
    No, evolution is not a fact. It’s a theory. Maybe in another hundred years or so, scientists will have something else and future people will laugh at us in the 20th and 21st century for believing evolution. It could happen.

  18. The title of the tract is like the scene selection menu on a DVD. Scene 1: Apes (the kids talk about evolution. Scene 2: Lies (the kids talk about Jesus). Scene 3: Ms. Henn (Lil Susy says that they have to respect their teacher)

  19. It’s the kind of cloud that the dinosaur in »There go the Dinosaurs« hides in. This variety only exists in JC’s tractiverse. At least, give him credit for being consistent here.

  20. Panda Rosa: Oooh, good catch. I didn’t even think of that.

    fdragon: Yeah. Alton Brown of Good Eats is apparently a born-again Christian, but has often given information about evolution on his TV show. I think there are plenty of even conservative Christians who can still be intelligent people who understand science and don’t just arbitrarily reject it.

    Cate: Sorry, got the e-mail about a week ago, but we’ve been really busy with visiting family and traveling and such, so I haven’t had a chance to reply yet. I’ll get back to you later tonight.

    Marquis de Carabas: Heehee, yes.

    Rarend: I was thinking it was more a play on “Sex, Lies and Videotape” or something.

    MysticalChicken: I know what fog is, but it’s normally not all puffy and bloomy like the stuff depicted.

  21. now that you mentioned the panel where lil suzy could be puking out an animated gif, this is not the only one. there’s the one with joey the robber from “the thief” and the granny from “gunslinger”. with that said, you could make an animated puke gallery somewhere in your site and add actual animated pieces of crap to the aforementioned panels. as for this tract, i dig how chick thinks non-christians get all butthurt when a fundie challenges their “beliefs (e.g, evolution) but we all know it’s the fundies that get so uppity when others bring up stuff like abortion or even theories like jesus supposed gayness. and now that someone mentioned t-rex being a vegan, i wouldnt be surprised if peta-ites worshipped the idea of all animals being vegans in eden.
    nice dissection. hope to get more in 08.

  22. MysticalChicken: It’s Magic LSD Fog! Brought to you by Chick Inc.! It helps to convert victims by getting them high.

  23. Just for a giggle, I imagined suzy saying “the bible tells us lots of stuff” in the same way Chief Wiggum does in that one Treehouse of Horror about the Witch Hunts. “Yeah, the bible says a lotta things-PUSH HER!”. Great job, and this year I hope to finally see a dissection on The Death Cookie.

  24. Long time reader, first time writer. Love what you do here and please keep it going. I have directed most of my Christian friends here, and now they understand exactly why THESE kind of Christians make it so hard for the rest.

    I would like to comment on the Tree of Knowledge vs intellectualism bit, that the “Tree of Knowledge” was the knowledge of Good and Evil, meaning Adam and Eve were created without such a distinction. The sin was acquiring the concept of “good” and “evil,” hence the shame that followed. So, humanity was never supposed to judge each other on what was good and evil, which also means not to become a judgemental a-hole like Chick Mayor McDouchebag McGhee here.

    I like when friends and I have debates about the Bible, and they say the Bible cannot have been altered in any way ever, which is odd considering that according mostly to John not only did Jesus live a life of non-judgement and preaching endlessly about God’s grace and eternal love, but also the damning hellfire pit of mostly inevitable torture, which would seem to conflict with his most famous passage, “For God so loved the world” that he would damn a good majority of it to eternal suffering.

    (Lest we forget that Hell, and the Devil, in Jack/Fundamentalist perception and interpretation is more firmly based in Muslim tradition, wholey unlike Hebrew interpretations, which make a lot more sense, considering if nothing else, Jesus was a good Jewish boy. He might know that if he would pay attention before slandering Islam.)

    The answer I always get when I bring up the whole eternal love/eternal torture problem, like being read to from a script, is that a father’s job is to punish. If a father has an unruly child, he should punish them, and yet still love them, hence Hell, the eternal spanking.

    My point, which has yet to be countered, is that a spanking ends. Once the child learns their lesson, and is properly punished, the punishment is over, and they learn from their mistake. If a punishment goes on forever, then what is being learned?

    Lewis Black makes an excellent point on why this brand of Christian should just stop trying to interpret the old Testament: it’s not their book. You don’t see Rabbis on the news talking about the New Testament, do you? Don’t think I didn’t get the sly David Cross reference either.

    Best wishes,
    -R

  25. You know, if you just changed Ms. Henn to a Creationist teacher. This tract would actually be realistic and reasonable.

    Ms. Henn: “And so God created the world in 6 days!”
    Retarded students: “wow!” “ooooh!” “My finger is stuck up my nose!”
    Lil Susy: “But Ms. Henn, all scientific data points elsewhere!”
    Ms. Henn: “SHUT UP LIL SUSY, SHUT UP OR SO HELP ME GOD I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH, ACCEPT IT!! ACCEPT IIIIIIT!!!”

    And it’d go on like that.

  26. Apes. Are not. Monkeys.

    Almost every person I’ve ever met who didn’t believe in evolution has eventually made some such remark as “I don’t believe we came from monkeys”.

    They don’t even know the (huge) differences between monkeys and apes, but they expect their opinions about evolution to be taken seriously.

  27. @Infidel753:

    As far as I know, the colloquial distinction between monkeys and apes does not reflect the current state-of-the-art in taxonomy.

    If »monkey« includes both New (Platyrrhini) and Old World Monkeys (Cercopithecidae), but not Apes (Hominoidea, which includes humans), the term is paraphyletic and is not to be used in modern taxonomy. The next valid taxon is Simiiformes, which includes all of the previously mentioned.

    »Ape« is a valid taxon, of course, if humans are included. It’s all just a nested hierarchy.

    Ms. Henn should have known this, of course.

    Anyway, I don’t understand why the creationists are so obessed with the »monkey«. Does it sound more ridiculous than »ape« or »primate«?

  28. * See this other thing that we also published, which astonishingly supports everything we claim here.

    No way! I saw that Dr. Dino Dumbass in person once and never again. Never again.

  29. Nick: Hmm, interesting . . . Of course, Mr’s Henn shouldn’t be set up as a protagonist or posiive character, simply because she’s such a frickin’ bitch. Hell, I’m surprised she’s even allowed to work at the school regardless of her obviously child-unfriendly attitude; after all (judging by the way she looks), she’s either got some sort of horrible disease that means she should be put in quarantine, or se’s too old.

    But very, very, interesting.

    I tell you, I’m getting tired of looking at people who look equally as horrible as the way they look; goddamnit, every time Chick draws new caracters, they either look like they lived in Chernobyl or have Harlequin’s.

    His latest Tract, Poor Little Lamb is a new low. The levels of ridiculous storytelling, plot, artwork and everything in general just aspire to a never-before reached frontier of batshit insanity.
    Look at the characters, but have a sick bag ready.

    By the way, I call dibs on dissecting it!
    to dissect it.

  30. and once again people are clueless about Jesus, bible, sin etc yet are fully aware of heaven and hell and what they offer.

  31. I just noticed something, acording to Chick God made animals (dinosaurs) on the same day he made man…but the Bible says He made animals FIRST, THEN he made man.

    Chick can’t even get the Bible right…

  32. @fdragon:
    On the same day, the sixth, according to Gen1:23ff. And yes, animals first.

    Note, that the very same verse says that »the earth bring forth the living creature«, while Chick’s friend Hovind often mocks that scientists claim life came from a rock. It’s the bible that claims this, I think … Yes, I noticed Gen1:24 says something different. Funny how you can have it both ways.

  33. Wow, I just read Poor Little Lamb (and by “read” I mean “skimmed”) and that is a new low.

    I like to think the guy in the second panel who says “I LOVE working seven days a week” is being sarcastic, though.

  34. and there’s Fang in Poor Little Lamb too. That’s the only worthwhile highlight there other than showing again just how two-faced this Yahweh is.

  35. Good Lord. I read “Poor Little Lamb” just now. And…I’m honestly speechless. Usually these make me laugh because they’re so screwed up it’s humerous. But…c’mon Jack, are you trying to get yourself in shit here?

    The one panel with the children begging the father not to kill the lamb brought back memories of all my dead pets.

    Thanks Jack!

    PS: On a side note, in the panel where God talks to Moses in that beam of light, first thing that popped into my head: God sends his IMs by lightbeam, bitch.

    MSN not good enough for the supreme being?

  36. re Poor little lamb. Didn’t God harden pharaoh’s heart so he wouldn’t let Jews go? My knowledge of that part of Bible is sketchy so if somebody can shed some more light……

  37. HOLY FUCKING SHIT WOW I JUST LEARNED A NEW MAC COMMAND!!!! 😀

    Another great dissection too. It’s been a few weeks and I was anxious. Not disappointed though.

  38. “Gotta keep in mind: The Creationist Museum DOES teach that the Tyrannosaurus was a vegan, back in Eden.”

    I can see that. The sharp flesh-tearing claws could be used for tearing off branches, and the powerful legs could be used for running down some of the faster more craftier plants

    You’re gonna love the explanation. I don’t know about the Creation “Museum” itself, but the explanation for at least T-Rex’s powerful jaws and sharp rending teeth is that T-Rex ate… coconuts. He needed the jaws and teeth to crunch up coconuts.

    So I’m sure the “sharp tearing claws pulling down branches” bit would make perfect sense to them.

  39. Anonymous Atheist: I’ve been thinking this for a while too, actually.

    Whenver someone mentions that “These evolutionists believe life started from the rocks.”, I will raise the point that they believe in such a concept too.

    “Oh, but our abiogenesis is different from yours; we believe ours was started by a Holy God.” will come the reply. “That’s the key difference!”

    “Yes, true,” I will state, “but ours is not faith; ours is a guess (we aren’t even saying that the current theory is exactly right) based on observable, testable, verified evidence, not a fucking book!”

    Oh, we also don’t believe that T. Rex ate coconuts – or, in the case of Kenny Hovind . . . watermelons.

    And we don’t believe that they breathed fire (another Hovind Special).

    And we don’t insist on saying that scientists weren’t there (so we cannot know), yet say the Bible is a RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION, thank you very much Ken Ham.

  40. “You’re gonna love the explanation. I don’t know about the Creation “Museum” itself, but the explanation for at least T-Rex’s powerful jaws and sharp rending teeth is that T-Rex ate… coconuts. He needed the jaws and teeth to crunch up coconuts.

    So I’m sure the “sharp tearing claws pulling down branches” bit would make perfect sense to them.”

    You know, the question would be, why would they need to eat anything at all? Why is another of god’s creations, plant-life, victimized here? Couldn’t all the animals and plants derive sustenance off of…I don’t know, their love for Jesus or something? I mean, nothing else in creationism needs to make sense, so they might as well say that.

  41. The theory of evolution is incompatible with God, on a far more fundamental level than just changing whatever dogma you happen to believe in to fit the facts as they come along.

    The theory of evolution was arrived at through the use of reason. No matter what torturous rationalizations Aquinas tried to put down, faith and reason are opposites, and not at all compatible with each other.

  42. Disturbance: Hmm, I don’t know if that’s a correct generalisation; if that were true, then by your logic, a belief in God is incompatible with the idea of gravity or heliocentricism.

    Of course, they were observed just by observation (apple on the head, looking through a telescope to see Venus disappear after crossing the Sun). Reason, using the full scientific method (drawing logic from those ovbservations), doesn’t necessarily conflict. An example is the idea of a round Earth; that was using reason, yet it doesn’t conflict, does it?

    Sure, it can be true sometimes, as is with evolution, but “supernaturalism” being in conflict with reason? Not always so – look at the Deists, for example.

    Not that I agree with Aquinas’ Five Proofs!

  43. Felis: You missed the point.

    Faith is the process of actively denying any sort of reason needs to take place in order to have knowledge. Saying that, on the one hand, the only way to know some fundamental truth is through revelation, and on the other, the only way to know anything else is through reason, is a blatant contradiction, one that more ‘modern’ (ie tamed) Christians struggled with quite a bit.

  44. Disturbance:

    That’s not quite accurate. You can have faith without actively denying reason. People have faith that something, such as God or aliens, exists without having to disregard evidence to the contrary. We don’t technically have proof that there are NOT aliens somewhere about the place, just no proof that there ARE aliens.

  45. Jack Chick seems completely incapable of drawing anything cute without ending up with disturbing instead. And what the hell’s up with the lack of pupils? These children look possessed. He’d do well to learn not to make his child protagonists so creepy looking, since most of his argument is based around “evolution isn’t true because I draw ugly teachers”.

    Honestly, him targetting tracts at children is very disturbing. The manipulative writing is sickening when seen from the perspective that it’s being used to scare kids into believing what he wants them to believe and getting to shut out any other ideas by telling them they’ll burn in hell for eternity.

    This sort of fear-mongering “do what I say or you’ll burn forever!!” rhetoric clearly works on far too many adults, the idea of using on kids is just deeply unsettling.

  46. Disturbance: Ah, I see; the processes used in faith and reason contradict. But, that doesn’t mean certain things cannot exist; an example being Santa Claus.

    Does that impede science and conflict? No.

    In a nutshell, Disturbance is repeating my argument. Of course, you can’t believe somthing just because it cannot be disproven. There’s a conflict there</i., but that’s slightly irrelevant.

    The conflict you highlighted is in the process, not in the actual conclusions. You know how some opeople will get the right answer to a maths question, but using incorrect working? This has a parallel.

    In short, people may be right about the existence of a God, but they came to the right CONCLUSION using the wrong METHOD (faith instead of reason).

  47. Sorry about the double post, but THAT ASSHOLE ON B4B IS NOW STATING HURRICANE KATRINA WAS AN ACT OF GOD.

    Fucking CUNT.

    “George Bush, in his mercy, made the mistake of saving the people from their sins.”

    Funny how he didn’t save the African-Americans, isn’t it? “Ahh, but dem blacks is ob de debbil.”

    I’m going over there right now.

  48. Heh. I love how the villainous Ms. Henn is filling the kid’s heads with notions of self-worth and human achievement. Any good fundamentalist knows that human beings are essentially worthless. At least, that’s the impression I’m getting here.

  49. “George Bush, in his mercy, made the mistake of saving the people from their sins.”

    That’s just fucked up. Apparently for some people it’s too much to ask that they not blame the victims of a hurricane for somehow apparently causing said hurricane. Yeah, that’s just what the world needs. Someone to look at a natural disaster and say “well it was all their fault, if they hadn’t pissed off God then there wouldn’t have been a hurricane.”

    The only vague excuse I can think of for people to say things like this (and sadly I’ve heard similar rhetoric before) is a complete inability to cope with the concept of anyone having anything happen to them that they don’t deserve, but that’s no fucking excuse. There is no fucking excuse.

  50. That’s what really bugs me about this form of fundamentalist idealism… there just is no faith in the human race. The wonder of human life, to Chick and his ilk, is nothing more than a trial in a wretched, pointless world, the endless ramifications of a single mistake. It’s so damn depressing.

  51. Alex: Post 62 = Hammer + Nail + Head.

    I couldn’t have put it better. That is what their arguments boil down to every time.

    “The evolutionists only think that the fossils are proof of evolution because of the worldview tthat they’ve taken to them! We believe they are proof of The Flood, because we bring a Creationist worldview to it.”

    1) They are looking at the evidence incorrectly.
    2) The interpretation thing is BS: EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE.
    2) That wouldn’t prove a global flood, never mind the Creation (a separate event); and it certainly wouldn’t prove Christianity!

    From point (2), there is no evidence, therefore, to show that the “Creationist interpretation” is correct, and so it indeed boils down to “BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!”

    This is another Ken Ham Special:

    “Evolutionists have this idea that the key to the past is the present, but that’s wrong. So that means they don’t know, because they weren’t there! But we have a special time machine that tells us exactly what went on, don’t we, kids? Can you guess what it is? That’s right: the Bible!”

    Bullshit. Utter – fucking – bullshit.

  52. Correction: that last numbered point is 3. The paragraph AFTER is derived from point 3 not 2. In other words, the fossils wouldn’t proove a global flood, and definitely not a Creation and CHRISTIANITY.

    As a result, there is no evidence-based logic from this line of thought/inference, so even if this interpretation bullshit wass true, the Creation would be a LOAD OF BOLLOCKS.

    Another stupid argument they make is this: because the Bible is the Revealed Word of God, and therefore The Ultimate Authority for Truth, it would actually be a sin to use scientific evidence to prove that “Creation is true”!!!11!15!1onepointonerecurring

    So, they aren’t required to look for it!

    Of course, you counter that by stating that science has to allow a slight margin of error anyway, so there’s no problem with finding evidence, as it only makes the Bible events very very likely! The proper scientific method, while used as the best authority by secular scientists, isn’t a perfect, absolute one! So, you can still call the Bible the final authority!

    No getting of that one, eh, Ham?

  53. The fact is, it is about interpretation.

    AiG interpret it incorrecty, but the scientists interpret the facts CORRECTLY, based on other pieces of evidence, and logic that doesn’t look at the facts in the light of ANY beliefs (“presuppositions”).

    They don’t assume anything at first; before the look at the evidence, all they’re thinking is: “We don’t know but we’re about to find out!”

    If there is no evidence for or against something, they just admit that they don’t know yet.

  54. Are you sure that Blogs 4 Brownback isn’t a spoof site or something? They just seem too ridiculous even for fundies. Especially the screennames of the contributors. I could be wrong. It is discouraging to think there are people this stupid who are still able to turn on a computer and start a blog, so hopefully it is a joke.

  55. I have thought that, but I think some of the people who posted serious-sounding comments were NOT the staff of B4B. So, even if B4B is a spoof, I think there are some religious individuals who actually are that silly/assholish/fucked up in the head.

    “I snapped that little girl’s DS in two, but before they could call security I ran to the nearest exit! Praise the Lord!”

    I think that is an example of spoofing, but given that there was a recent report on the DS by Fox with Mr. O’ Reilly, stating that the Pictochat feature could be used over 300 feet away by peadophiles (they only found out after three years?), some people will take that to mean that the DS is a real big danger, given that O’ Reilly is God’s Modern Prophet (TM), and we all know how many fundies abide by his crap.*

    Present it in a blog as proof that the DS is really a “Devil Screen” and some fundies will take that as gospel (pun intended).

    So, if B4B are a sppof site, they’re still helping to further irrationality. Ta, you fucking idiots.

    *Yeah, it’s a concern, but not a massive one – the chances are too low.

  56. Felis, etc, still get it incorrectly.

    Reason is a process. Faith (revelation) is also a process, both of which one uses to come to conclusions about reality. In one, you use your mind and the available data and attempt to come up with the conclusion that bests matches the facts as you know them. In the other you wait for your empty head to be filled by divine revelations.

    God can ONLY be concluded through FAITH. Therefore, any belief in God is incompatible with reason.

    Lastly, its ridiculous that I have to mention it, but has anyone sat down and thought about what happens when people conclude that the process of gaining truth is a supernatural one?

  57. Correction: In Post 55., I meant SEIBER was repeating my argument.

    I see what you’re saying, as I said in 55, and it’s a very valid point. The PROCESS of faith contradicts with the PROCESS of science, yes. So, a belief in God is incompatible with the GENERAL PROCESS of reason. Yes, that’s exactly right – to use faith for some topics, reason for others would mean you’re in two minds.

    I think you’re missing my point, though. I’m simply stating that the idea of a God is necessarily incorrect.

    The belief that a God exists (a process called faith) is a fallacy, in exactly the same way that a belief in evolution (blind faith without testing it, would be a fallcy).

    But, what if someone were to provide evidence for the God hypothesis? Then, the scientific reasoning that a God exists (a process called . . . reason) would be valid.

    Consider this: evolution is true; it’s been observed and tested, but it is formed on the PROCESS of scientific reasoning. However, if someone was to accept it as a matter of blind faith, the PROCESS would be wrong, but the conclusion would still be right – evolution still happens.

    They used the wrong process, but they came to the right conclusion, didn’t they?

    So it could be with the God hypothesis: although the PROCESS USED to arrive at that conclusion was wrong, it doesn’t make the CONCLUSION ITSELF wrong.

    Thus, it is still entirely possible that there’s a God out there – only people have come to that conclusion through the wrong means and a lucky guess.

  58. “So it could be with the God hypothesis: although the PROCESS USED to arrive at that conclusion was wrong, it doesn’t make the CONCLUSION ITSELF wrong.

    Thus, it is still entirely possible that there’s a God out there – only people have come to that conclusion through the wrong means and a lucky guess”

    Problem there is that there’s no observable evidence to point to god, or at least any specific god of any religion. It’s sort of a Chicken and the Egg thing in that Evolution was not made up on the spot with no scientific process, it was theorized based on observations, tested, and altered to fit with the conclusions over time. Anyone who takes Evolution on “blind faith” from there, is doing it with that background behind it. God however, has no observable evidence behind it, and no evidence (even if you wanted to say, the whole world is evidence to god!) to point to any particular god. Therefore, I can see no reason to stock any probability to saying that the Judeo-Christian god exists, until there is repeatable observable evidence that points specifically to the Judeo-Christian God.

    I do think that Science and Religion cannot particularly co-exist. God has always existed in the cracks and shadows of Science. In the dark ages, the Devil was thought to be behind sickness, and God was thought to be behind healing, as we learned more about disease and other maladies, we knew this was not true, and god receded out of life sciences. Like so, this could be said of the Weather, heliocentricism, psychology, and now evolution. When Science moved in, God had to move out, and now it seems that God has been pushed out by most areas of Science and only exists in the still fuzzy “How did it all start?” area of science. But even though you COULD say that God started evolution, the world, weather, animal life, etc. It’s the same thing as saying the Devil makes you sick and God heals you again. It’s not a rational explanation, it’s simply a place-holder waiting for a rational explanation.

  59. Also, @ disturbance:

    “Lastly, its ridiculous that I have to mention it, but has anyone sat down and thought about what happens when people conclude that the process of gaining truth is a supernatural one?”

    I disagree with that. It implies that we learn only what (and when) a higher power, i.e. God, wants us to. If there is no learning without divine revelation, then there can be no free will.

    Hell, that’s my biggest issue with the story of creation, aside from the obvious contradictions (God is omniscient, but he doesn’t notice the only two fucking people on Earth eating an apple? He only discovers this by taking a brisk constitutional around Eden? WTF?) and the suspension of disbelief that is involved. It’s that God wanted us to be primitive, ignorant idiots, and that a higher thought process and the ability to think rationally is playing into the devil’s hands.

  60. Marquis de Carabas: That’s true; and, you can’t go around acting as if there IS a God, because there is no evidence. All I’m stating is that the possibilty of a God is still not excluded.

    So, I am saying (for example, with Deists), that the belief in a God doesn’t matter, as it is NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magesteria; look up Steven Jay Gould). A belief in a God of that sort wouldn’t have any impact on your scientific understanding or reasoning.

    Not that you should believe it because it can’t be disproven, mind . . .

    BTW I’m going on vacation for a week today, so I can’t really reply. See y’all.

  61. @Luxxi

    He seems to have convinced himself that people “can’t stop” reading them, because they’re compelled by the word of the lord, not because they’re just so ridiculously unintentionally hilarious, and as this site so gloriously displays, very easy and fun to mock.

    But if there’s anything the fundies are very good at, it’s self-deception.

  62. @ Marquis de Carabas

    true. I often browse christian fundy sites because they are so funny and I can go “WTF? They actually believe that?”

  63. That link that Luxxi posted was actually really funny. It’s like, the reason that the tracts are gone when the Fundies put them on park benches is ’cause people through them away. After all, it’s gross to sit on crap.

  64. “They will be without excuse because of the message of that “little comic book” that they scorned.”

    This sounds suspiciously like they’re saying ‘nyah nyah now you can’t say we didn’t warn you. We’re covered!’.

  65. Ya know, in real life I’ve NEVER seen the ‘secular’ or ‘pro-science’ person flying off the handle screaming and yelling, or shouting ‘threats’ trying to intimidate the ‘pro-religion’ person.
    That IS, however, EXACTLY how I’ve seen the ‘anti-evolution’ ‘pro-christianity’ person act. Lots of arm-flappng, finger-pointing, and yelling and screaming about how I was going ‘to burn in HELL!’ and better shut up if I know what’s good for me.

    However, the REAL irony here is ‘Ms. Henn’.
    “I never forgive or forget!…keep your mouth shut…..or ELSE!”
    Hmmm. Who does that sound like?
    It reminds me of someone that I’ve been told by Jack Chick that “never forgets” someone else’s ‘sin’ a looooong time ago, “and never forgives” (even though it’s not your OWN fault) and you better “keep your mouth shut” (not believe/consider/speak an opposing viewpoint) “or else” he’s gonna torture you for eternity.
    Now who was that that Jack described that about?….G-something or other…..rhymed with ‘cod’. Mr. Cod?
    Jack’s subconcious is smarter than his own concious mind. He’s trying soooo hard to deny the truth that he himself ‘knows’ deep inside is right, or at the very least is more plausible than his ‘religion’.
    Ms. Henn is how he REALLY see’s God.
    God=’adult/teacher’ figure, and humans=the ‘children’ in his religion’s analogies and parables all the time after all, don’t they?

  66. Here’s someting else:

    Susi is SATAN!

    Read it again associating Ms. Henn with God, Timmy with his innocent ‘children’ the humans that God is trying to ‘teach’ the TRUTH to, and Susi as Satan trying to hide the truth from humans to keep them from understanding ‘God’, and it makes a MUCH more sensible story. Even in context of their religion.
    Really, try it. 🙂

  67. @Shackleford
    “This one’s sort of similar. Pretty funny.”

    Incidentally, the art is really friggin’ good on that one.

    But it also has, in addition to insulting Jews pretty steadily through it, a continual hilarious misunderstanding of what “separation of church and state” means and how it’s applied and punished with that whole “You can’t talk about Jesus on school grounds, or men in 1984ish outfits will come out and beat you to death!”.

    I defy Chick to find one Separation of Church and State related police beating, hell it’s hard enough to find one separation of Church and State ruling where they ruled FOR that idea. After all “Under God” is still in the pledge of allegiance, “In God we Trust” is still on the money, the 10 commandments are still in front of many court houses, and other such biblically specific paraphernalia has found it’s way into all sorts of walks of government life.

  68. What’s this “Old Devil” stuff, anyway? Is there, like, a “Young Devil” and an “Old Devil”? The former is some kind of sex icon who challenges the conservative perspectives…

    Nahhh, I think the explanation of this one is easier. Jack has drawn Timmy as a black person. So, in the tradition of Uncle Remus stories, he has Lil Suzy ‘relate’ to Timmy by using a Chick-modified black-speak. Instead of saying ‘dat ol’ Debbil, he gon’ getcha’ she refers to ‘the old Devil’, because, well, she’s a gentrified little white girl.

    Why limit yourself to insulting jews, scientists, rational thinkers and those with IQs over 70 when you can also include African-americans? Gotta love it!

  69. “Incidentally, the art is really friggin’ good on that one.”

    That’s because Chick got new artist for some tracts. Styles are vastly different. It took Chick ages to admit somebody else is doing them and I think he is black (don’t ask for reference on that one, I seem to remember I read it somewhere)

  70. Oh, and I hate Chick giving the kids annoyingly cutesy names like “Susy” and “Timmy.” *MY* best friends in elementary school were Jordan, George, Alan and Jean-Todd.

  71. “Here’s a tract that needs dissection: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0100/0100_01.asp

    I think it’s awesome how it says one of Satan’s “FAVORITE (Chicks emphasis) tools” to control people is religion, and how it’s used to keep “billions in bondage”, while the entire point of all of these comics is “believe my religion”…

    “Religion is EVIL! It’s one of SATAN’S TOOLS to control YOU! Now follow MY religion. It’s different than the other ones. The proof is me telling you it’s different…”

  72. Shackleford: “Religion is EVIL! It’s one of SATAN’S TOOLS to control YOU! Now follow MY religion. It’s different than the other ones. The proof is me telling you it’s different…”

    You forgot: “We don’t use religious garbage like statues and rosaries to pray, so we have a personal relationship with God! Now follow this book right down to the letter, or you’ll go to Hell!”

  73. A couple days ago I had a horrifying experience. A fellow was on a talk show (I don’t know which one, my sister called me in to see what was happening) where a fellow was touting the Hallelujah Diet: basically conforming to dietary laws of the Old Testament.

    I couldn’t believe the doctor who was on there to refute said diet. She acted EXACTLY like Ms. Henn, or any of the other science-is-god freakjobs Chick inserts into his tracts! She was mean-spirited, spiteful, arrogant, and just plain rude in contrast to the Christian man who’s trying very hard to be patient with her.

    I don’t know what disturbs me more: that there are actually some people in the world who behave like a Chick villain, or that Chick might catch wind of this and decide his skewed portrayals are vindicated.

  74. @Shackleford

    Well, people like Chick are SO fundamentalist, that they no longer believe that their form of Christianity is a religion. They call it a “personal living relationship with Jesus Christ”, and are often offended if you refer to it as a religion. It’s actually amusing how much they’ll toss the word around after they’ve destroyed any of the original meaning of it; that’s why you hear them say “religion of evolution” and “religion of homosexuality” and other stuff that are clearly not religions.

  75. @ Marquis de Carabas

    This is not limited to extreme fundies like Chick. I read column of local one, who is less extreme (not regarding catholicism, he is ex RCC relatively-big shot) and he spoke against religions as well. I guess he has same views about this as Chick.

  76. Strange, though. I’ve heard pseudo-religion talk, to the extreme of Kent Hovind claiming evolution is a religion that places time as their “god”, since we supposedly believe time “created” life. I have hardly ever heard fundamentalists self-examine, and criticize their “religions” of Heterosexuality, the Family, America, the Military, Unrestricted Gun Ownership, Football…

    So why don’t these apply the same standards to their own beliefs? ‘Cmon!

    And re: Jewish dietary laws, I find that amusing. I keep barely (not quite) kosher myself, abstaining from pork and shellfish, but nothing stricter than that, and I’m still about 10 lbs. overweight. And among Jews I’ve known, the fattest couple I’ve known were strictly Orthodox. (Please don’t read more into that sentence than on the face of it.)

    Healthy eating seems to be less about keeping kosher and more about making fruits and vegetables a larger part of your religion. I mean, diet.

  77. @luxxi

    I’m not sure. I think there may be sects of christians that simply follow the bible and the philosophy of Jesus on their own without going to churches or considering themselves a part of “organized religion”.

    @Randy
    “So why don’t these apply the same standards to their own beliefs? ‘Cmon!”

    Well, I think that’s the problem with the fundies right there, is that they obtained that level of belief by abandoning it. That is, they don’t treat it as a belief anymore, they treat it as a universal fact. It’s not “I believe in God”, it’s “I know there is a god for a fact”, and since it’s an abortion of the idea of facts, there doesn’t have to be any actual reason behind this shift. So essentially, there’s nothing you can apply or do to shake them of their believes, because there’s no logic to them, no referencing or basing them off experience of the world. Just “I know it’s true, why? Because I do.”. So then, they don’t even consider applying the same criticisms and standards that they would to other religions or things they consider religions to their own, because they’ve already accepted it as the ultimate truth, and as far as they’re concerned all they have to do is make others accept it, not test it.

  78. sombody needs to get to get a group of chritians and work out how many actually belive in the arguments jack makes, particulary the track about noahs ark, I cannot belive than anybody, of any religon could belive this.

  79. @Harbinger of mortality

    Apparently a sizable number, since there was enough contributions to make both a well funded Creationist Museum in Kentucky, as well as a few expeditions to “find the Ark”, a project to attempt to rebuild a scale model of Noah’s Ark, and more than a few books attempting to explain how it all could be possible.

    With the unstoppable lack of logic “Because God”, there’s pretty much nothing that’s too unlikely or unbelievable, because the only explanation the fundies need is “Goddidit” and they’re satisfied.

  80. On the SinBusters tract, they list “Confucius” under the “false gods”. Since when was Confucius a god of any sort? I thought he was a philosopher, and I realise Wikipedia isn’t necessarily the most reliable of sources but I’ve never seen evidence to the contrary *is confuciused – I mean confused*

  81. I feel I should point something out. Susy a few times says that most of the world will go to Hell. Does that include the 4 year old Sudanian boy who was murdered by guerillas, or even the 6 year old Thai girl who drowned in the tsunami.

    Apparently, the only people in heaven will be fundamentalist white south U.S hicks. That is such a hell. Why would God make it so most of the world to go to hell for merely not knowing about him because all they know is that they are starving to death and no Red Cross people are their.

    What a fucker.

  82. Chick believes that everyone is born a christian and only stop and become sinners later in life. Young children go straight to heaven but once you reach a certain age you start sinning and become hell bound. Which brings up an interesting point. If you abort a baby you send it straight to heaven but if it is born odds are it will turn away from chick style christianity and go to hell. So chick, if you believ that why are you against abortion? Aren’t you doing the baby a favour?

  83. @ Carrie Ganne

    “I feel I should point something out. Susy a few times says that most of the world will go to Hell. Does that include the 4 year old Sudanian boy who was murdered by guerillas, or even the 6 year old Thai girl who drowned in the tsunami.”

    I don’t know where chick stands on this but generaly christians believe that you don’t go to hell if you don’t know about Jesus. “Knowing” about Jesus in fundy mentality means walking to somebody saying “Jesus died for your sins. Will you accept him as your saviour”. If you don’t say yes you know about him, rejected him and live in sin.

    Where people who don’t know about him go I don’t know.

  84. Hmmmmm….anyone notice the similarity in the title “Apes, Lies, and Ms. Henn” to “Sex, Lies, and Videotape”? I think Jack inadvertantly “channeled” the title and it gives us a glimpse into his sick mind. Notice how much attention was given to drawing “Lil Susy” as compared to the other characters. Her hair is so much SHINIER than the others—wonder why? Wait, I don’t want to know…

  85. see, what’s funny is that according to creationism, animals were created a different day than man. chick is every possible sort of fail.

  86. Fun fact: Kent Horvind, who is briefly mentioned in this tract but cited more often in “Big Daddy” (a tract in which Chick attempts to prove evolution wrong relying completely on arguments from Horvind), is actually in prison for tax fraud.

    But here’s the more interesting thing: While Kent Horvind has been harshly criticized by scientists, as you might have guessed, he’s also been criticized by OTHER Young Earth Creationists. That’s right, even Answers In Genesis (a Young Earth Creationist group) doesn’t like the guy. Says quite a bit when Chick’s anti-evolution arguments rely completely on a guy that even other Young Earth Creationists dislike, doesn’t it?

  87. “She looks just like a chipmunk, only instead of packing her cheeks with nuts, they’re filled to capacity with self-important moralist bullshit.”
    …Do I even need to try to make a joke about Lisa’s father here or does it make itself for anyone familiar with it? also how is the dissection of that one coming along? or did it give you such an ultra-aneurysm that you decided not to?

  88. “For the record, I’m an agnostic.”
    Oy vay! I’ll take a Christian over an agnostic any day! Sure, there’s a POSSIBILITY that God exists. There’s also a possibility the moon is made of cheese. That doesn’t mean it’s likely, or that you have any reason in the world to believe it, or even doubt that it’s not true. And they’re so self-rightious, like “oooh, EVERYONE should be agnostic since there’s a tiny chance God might exist”. Bullshit. Just because more people believe in Religious stories than secular ones doesn’t make them any more likely to be valid. The agnostic mindset is even more boggling than the religious mindsets.

    “Why can’t a person believe in Jesus, but also, y’know, take a scientific approach to the world around them?”
    Because Jesus himself isn’t scientific. There are multiple independent sources confirming that people like Julius Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar, and Charlemagne all existed as people, but the only accounts of Jesus were written after he was said to exist, and bear striking resemblences to other myths.

    Also, I think this quote pretty much sums agnostics up:
    “An agnostic is an atheist for whom the fear of God has been supplanted by the fear of his fellow man.”

  89. The funniest thing is the frame in which the girl says
    God said he made man and the dinosaurs blah blah, this sounds just like the kind of claims preschool chilren make,

    (my dad is the coolest he makes a million dollars a day and rules the world and created the dinosaurs, or realy, well my dad…)

  90. jack chick says “the sadest part is that if people are told we come from apes and belive it, they won’t pay any attention to what god says.”

    The sadest part is actually that if people are taught fundimentalist religon and belive it, they pay no attention to evidence and seem to loose all common sense for no reason”

    Nearly as sad is that if you pay attention to what the bible tells us god says, it makes no sense and it itself is the only evidence to support its claims.

  91. @Kevin: I prefer Stephen Colbert’s explanation of agnostics, from [i]I Am America and So Can You[/i]: “Agnostics: atheists without balls.”

  92. That’s sad, author. Either you believe in god or you don’t, agnosticism is not a third alternative, it is something else entirely. Claiming to be an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist or theist, shows only complete ignorance about what atheism means. You’re actually being extreme condescending towards those who dare call themselves atheists, with the implication that atheists completely rule out the possibility of anything supernatural. Of course some atheists do, but the vast majority just don’t give it any more consideration than the possible existence of elves or unicorns.

    And here I was thinking you actually knew what you were talking about.

    1. Kinda sad that I’m replying to a nearly six-year-old comment, but I had to get this out of my system.

      I don’t really understand what you’re saying, but I understand enough to know I’m being condescended to, and so I have to speak up regarding my beliefs.

      There are, in fact, more than two options to that question you pose: You can believe that a god exists, you can not believe that a god exists, or you can believe that a god does not exist. There are atheists like that, who disbelieve in a god with as much fervor as some theists believe in a god. The agnostic position, as I understand it, seems to be that believing that god doesn’t exist is as foolish as believing that god does exist, and prefer to be somewhere in the middle. Then of course, there’s always the ability to answer, “I don’t know” which is what I do.

      Granted, a bunch of agnostics simply fall in the “lack of faith” category, but they may also keep in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as some atheists believe, and keep in mind that even though they may or may not lean towards god existing or not, the opposite viewpoint may be true because they just don’t know.

      Either way, Jabberwock and others have the right to say that they don’t know, and to call themselves agnostics, or whatever the hell else your problem with them is.

  93. Panda Rosa that blew my mind. Is it possible Jack is drawing… his mother? That would go a long way toward explaining why he’s so fucked up in the head, if his mom blew up like that any time he ever said anything.

  94. none of this shit is true HAHA FUCKTARDS, SO STUPID BELIEVING IN DUMB EVOLUTION!! HAHA DUMBASSES—

  95. It’s absolutely ridiculous how close minded some people are.

    When I was younger, I reflected on how Evolution could mix with God’s word, and it made perfect sense to me that they could both work together.
    I was happy because I found out that learning science and learning my belief could mix and complement each other.

    Then I tried to explain it to my parents on why Evolution would work with the bible. My way of thinking of it was very close to JBWocky’s, and I needed to hear my parent’s opinion on it, because my belief was starting to slip.
    And they went right ahead and confirmed my fears; they just couldn’t grasp something as simple as evolution mixing with God’s creation. Evolution was a bad word, the pastor said so, s don’t even think about what it means.

    I used to pour into the scriptures, and have deep insights and knowledge of the bible. To this day I’m not even agnostic any more.
    Fuck this shit.
    I want nothing to do with a believe system that continues to mentally neuter people, while doing little to set an example of righteousness or enlightenment, like it could do if it didn’t encourage such close-mindedness in it’s followers.

  96. I’m a Christan and I find these things stupid. Anyway, funny dissection and good ripping apart of this thing’s horrible science. I love when these things get their flawed arguments ripped apart.

  97. I have good news, children! That gum you like is going to come back in style!

    Ah beginning with a Twin Peaks reference. You really brightened up my day! 😀

    Mrs. Henn, besides the obvious “squawking gossipy hen” reference I’m surprised since Jack seems to have such a low opinion of feminists, Ms. Damien in That Crazy Guy and Ms. Frost in Dark Dungeons that it’s not Ms. Henn!

    And aren’t these kids a little young to be learning that much about evolution? They look like they’re in what first grade? I mean maybe teaching them about dinosaurs, but I think a little young for the evolution vs. creation debate.

  98. Ahhhh… Whenever I’m concerned about atheists getting just as preachy and condescending as the fundamentalists they hate, I just remember that more modern Christians and atheists have one thing in common: most of us think that creationism is bullshit now. And that’s comforting.

    Hilarious review as always. 😀

  99. “We’re going to be GREAT friends… and you’ll meet many of MY close friends, too. We’re going to have such fun together… and long as you do what I say!”
    That sounds kinda hot, if she didn’t look like something a witch would throw into her boiling pot to make a poison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *